Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2573–2580 | Cite as

Double-inversion recovery with synthetic magnetic resonance: a pilot study for assessing synovitis of the knee joint compared to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

  • Jisook Yi
  • Young Han LeeEmail author
  • Ho-Taek Song
  • Jin-Suck Suh
Musculoskeletal
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the agreement between double-inversion recovery (DIR) with synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI for the assessment of knee synovitis.

Methods

T1-weighted CE-MRI and synthetic MRI of 30 patients were compared. Synthetic DIR image reconstruction was performed with two inversion times (280–330 ms and 2800–2900 ms). Subjective image quality, visibility of synovium, detection of synovitis, and total synovitis score in the knee joint were evaluated on both MR images. The relative signal intensity (SI) and relative contrast of synovium, joint effusion, and bone marrow for two imaging were assessed. Differences in data between two imaging were assessed by using Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test and chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test. Interobserver agreement was expressed as weighted kappa value. Accuracy of synthetic DIR image was calculated by using CE-MRI as reference standard.

Results

T1-weighted CE-MRI yielded better image quality than synthetic DIR imaging (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreements for detecting synovitis diagnosis/sum of the synovitis score were moderate to almost perfect (κ = 0.58/0.44, synthetic DIR; κ = 0.83/0.65, T1-weighted CE-MRI). There were no statistical differences in visibility of synovium (p = 0.058–0.190), detection of synovitis (p < 0.001), and relative SI of structures between two imaging (p = 0.086–0.360). Synovium-to-effusion contrast was higher in synthetic DIR (p = 0.003) and synovium-to-bone marrow contrast was higher in CE-MRI (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Synthetic DIR imaging showed a moderate degree of interobserver agreement and good accuracy for detecting synovitis. Though it has limitations, it may play a role in imaging of degenerative joint disease or larger cohort scientific studies where gadolinium application is not feasible.

Key Points

• Synthetic double-inversion recovery (DIR) imaging avoids the use of contrast agent.

• There was no significant difference between T1-weighted CE-MRI and synthetic DIR imaging in evaluating presence of synovitis in knee joint.

• Synthetic DIR imaging showed moderate degree of interobserver agreement and good accuracy for detecting synovitis compared to CE-MRI, and it may facilitate evaluation of some regions of peripatellar synovitis.

Keywords

Knee Synovitis Magnetic resonance imaging Contrast media 

Abbreviations

DIR

Double-inversion recovery

FS

Fat-suppressed

MDME

Multiple-dynamic multiple echo

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government, Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIP, 2018R1A2B6008076).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Young Han Lee.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Kim HK, Zbojniewicz AM, Merrow AC, Cheon JE, Kim IO, Emery KH (2011) MR findings of synovial disease in children and young adults: part 1. Pediatr Radiol 41:495–511 quiz 545-496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith MD (2011) The normal synovium. Open Rheumatol J 5:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun HJ, Dragoo JL, Hargreaves BA, Levenston ME, Gold GE (2013) Application of advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in evaluation of the lower extremity. Radiol Clin North Am 51:529–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schaible HG, Grubb BD (1993) Afferent and spinal mechanisms of joint pain. Pain 55:5–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dye SF, Vaupel GL, Dye CC (1998) Conscious neurosensory mapping of the internal structures of the human knee without intraarticular anesthesia. Am J Sports Med 26:773–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benito MJ, Veale DJ, FitzGerald O, van den Berg WB, Bresnihan B (2005) Synovial tissue inflammation in early and late osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 64:1263–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rhodes LA, Grainger AJ, Keenan AM, Thomas C, Emery P, Conaghan PG (2005) The validation of simple scoring methods for evaluating compartment-specific synovitis detected by MRI in knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44:1569–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loeuille D, Rat AC, Goebel JC et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging in osteoarthritis: which method best reflects synovial membrane inflammation? Correlations with clinical, macroscopic and microscopic features. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17:1186–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roemer FW, Kassim Javaid M, Guermazi A et al (2010) Anatomical distribution of synovitis in knee osteoarthritis and its association with joint effusion assessed on non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:1269–1274Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez-Madrid F, Karvonen RL, Teitge RA, Miller PR, An T, Negendank WG (1995) Synovial thickening detected by MR imaging in osteoarthritis of the knee confirmed by biopsy as synovitis. Magn Reson Imaging 13:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunt CH, Hartman RP, Hesley GK (2009) Frequency and severity of adverse effects of iodinated and gadolinium contrast materials: retrospective review of 456,930 doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1124–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T et al (2013) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 23:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang H, Hii M, Le M et al (2018) Gadolinium deposition in deep brain structures: relationship with dose and ionization of linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5751
  15. 15.
    Loeuille D, Sauliere N, Champigneulle J, Rat AC, Blum A, Chary-Valckenaere I (2011) Comparing non-enhanced and enhanced sequences in the assessment of effusion and synovitis in knee OA: associations with clinical, macroscopic and microscopic features. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:1433–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoo HJ, Hong SH, Oh HY et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of a fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery sequence with fat suppression for assessment of peripatellar synovitis: preliminary results and comparison with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 283:769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saranathan M, Worters PW, Rettmann DW, Winegar B, Becker J (2017) Physics for clinicians: fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) and double inversion recovery (DIR) imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25737
  18. 18.
    Jahng GH, Jin W, Yang DM, Ryu KN (2011) Optimization of a double inversion recovery sequence for noninvasive synovium imaging of joint effusion in the knee. Med Phys 38:2579–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abidi Z, Faeghi F, Mardanshahi Z, Mortazavi H (2017) Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of double inversion recovery sequence compared with FLAIR and T2W_TSE in detection of cerebral multiple sclerosis lesions. Electron Physician 9:4162–4170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eichinger P, Kirschke JS, Hoshi MM, Zimmer C, Mühlau M, Riederer I (2017) Pre- and postcontrast 3D double inversion recovery sequence in multiple sclerosis: a simple and effective MR imaging protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.  https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5329
  21. 21.
    Son YN, Jin W, Jahng GH et al (2017) Efficacy of double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of the synovium in the femoro-patellar joint without contrast enhancement. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5017-3
  22. 22.
    Warntjes JB, Leinhard OD, West J, Lundberg P (2008) Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 60:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crema MD, Felson DT, Roemer FW et al (2013) Peripatellar synovitis: comparison between non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced MRI and association with pain. The MOST study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21:413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamabe E, Anavim A, Sakai T et al (2014) Comparison between high-resolution isotropic three-dimensional and high-resolution conventional two-dimensional FSE MR images of the wrist at 3 tesla: a pilot study. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Betts AM, Leach JL, Jones BV, Zhang B, Serai S (2016) Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology 58:1017–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tanenbaum LN, Tsiouris AJ, Johnson AN et al (2017) Synthetic MRI for clinical neuroimaging: results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:1103–1110Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Granberg T, Uppman M, Hashim F et al (2016) Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:1023–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Hayashi D et al (2011) Assessment of synovitis with contrast-enhanced MRI using a whole-joint semiquantitative scoring system in people with, or at high risk of, knee osteoarthritis: the MOST study. Ann Rheum Dis 70:805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riederer SJ, Suddarth SA, Bobman SA, Lee JN, Wang HZ, MacFall JR (1984) Automated MR image synthesis: feasibility studies. Radiology 153:203–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huh YM, Suh JS, Lee JW, Song HT (2004) Synovitis and soft tissue impingement of the ankle: assessment with enhanced three-dimensional FSPGR MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 19:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jisook Yi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Young Han Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ho-Taek Song
    • 1
  • Jin-Suck Suh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, YUHS-KRIBB Medical Convergence Research Institute, and Severance Biomedical Science InstituteYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Haeundae Paik HospitalInje University College of MedicineBusanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations